DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
rearward wing with an independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a horizontal angle (claim 24)
*Note: Both the actuator and the horizontally-oriented actuated portion must be properly identified with a reference number.
rearward wing with an additional independently operated actuator connected to an additional actuated portion oriented substantially at a vertical angle (claim 24)
*Note: Both the actuator and the vertically-oriented additional actuated portion must be properly identified with a reference number.
the left side and right side forward wings connected to the same actuator (claim 29).
*Note: The current drawings show each of the forward wings connected to a different actuator, not the same actuator.
forward wings with portions oriented at a substantially vertical angle, and these portions may include moveable portions connected to actuators (claim 30)
*Note: The “moveable portions” of the vertically-oriented portion of forward wings must be properly identified with a reference number.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
rearward wing with an independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a horizontal angle (claim 24)
rearward wing with an additional independently operated actuator connected to an additional actuated portion oriented substantially at a vertical angle (claim 24)
an independent power source including one or more of a storage cell, a storage cell requiring contact with seawater, and/or a means of converting water flow to electricity (claim 24).
the left side and right side forward wings connected to the same actuator (claim 29)
Note: Each of the above-claimed features must be expressly described in the specification
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
(i) Claim 24 (line 5) sets forth two or more rearward wings with at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a horizontal angle, and at least one additional independently operated actuator connected to an additional actuated portion oriented substantially at a vertical angle (emphasis added).
It is noted that ¶0062 and ¶0063 of the originally filed application describe that “the opposite end of each push rod 51 is connected to an actuator 61 as shown in FIG. 6, wherein the connection between the push rod 51 and the actuator 61 is a bayonet style ball joint”, wherein Fig 6 further shows the actuator 61 as a vertically-oriented protruding structure.
The specification, however, has failed to properly identify any “actuated portion” of the rearward wing(s) that is oriented at a horizontal angle, or how such horizontally-oriented actuated portion of the rearward wing(s) is connected to the respective actuator. Additionally, neither the drawings nor the specification provide any clarity on which specific structures are being considered as the “actuator” and the “actuated portion” as recited in the claim.
(ii) Claim 24 (lines 13-17) sets forth an independent power source including one or more of a storage cell requiring contact with seawater and/or a means of converting water flow to electricity. However, the disclosure is silent on what such storage cells are that require contact with seawater, or what mechanism is employed for converting water flow to electricity
(iii) Claim 29 sets forth the moveable portions of the left and right side forward wings as being connected to the same actuator. However, although ¶0062 of the disclosure teaches four servo motors each independent driving one of the two forward and two rearward wings, it does not provide sufficient information on how they are connected to the same actuator.
Therefore, in absence of sufficient guidance in the disclosure, a person skilled in the art would not be able to make and/or use any of the above recited claimed matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 24 (line 5), the limitation “two or more rearward wings attached to the body, with at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a horizontal angle, and at least one additional independently operated actuator connected to an additional actuated portion oriented substantially at a vertical angle” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite for being vague and confusing.
(i) In absence of sufficient information in the disclosure, it is not clear from the claim language alone whether the “independently operated actuator” and the “additional independently operated actuator” are both connected to the same rearward wing or to a different (respective) one of the two rearward wings. Applicant is requested to rephrase the claim for clarity , which is necessary to enable one to determine the exact metes and bounds of the claimed matter.
(ii) Additionally, it is noted that neither the drawings nor the specification provide any clarity on which specific structures are being considered as the “actuator” and the “actuated portion”. As noted above, ¶0062 and ¶0063 of the originally filed application describe that “the opposite end of each push rod 51 is connected to an actuator 61 as shown in FIG. 6, wherein the connection between the push rod 51 and the actuator 61 is a bayonet style ball joint”, wherein Fig 6 shows the actuator 61 as a vertically-oriented protruding structure. The specification however does not identify any “actuated portions” that are connected to respective actuators and are oriented at horizontal and vertical angles, respectively.
Which structure described in the specification is being considered as the “actuator” of claim 24? Is it the push rod 51 or the protruding structure 61?
Which structure is being considered as the “actuated portion” of claim 24? Is it the protruding structure 61 or some other structure on the rearward wing(s)?
Applicant is requested to provide clarification and/or correction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive, or have been rejected on new grounds as a result of the claims amendment.
Drawing Objections
Applicant’s Arguments: Regarding claim 29, Applicant has argued that the drawings and paragraph [0062] describe the relationship between the actuator 61 and the forward wings 16.
Response: Although ¶0062 of the disclosure teaches four servo motors each independent driving one of the two forward and two rearward wings, it does not provide sufficient information on how they are connected to the same actuator.
Specification Objections
Applicant’s Arguments: Applicant has argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand how an independent power source mounted in or on the body and capable of meeting the power supply needs, wherein the independent power source includes one or more of a storage cell, a storage cell requiring contact with seawater, and/or a means of converting water flow to electricity are disclosed in the specification. In particular, a non-limiting example of converting flow to electricity is shown in FIGS. 13-14, as the propeller, if towed, would generate electricity, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response: Contrary of the applicant’s arguments, the specification fails to disclose any independent power source including one or more of a storage cell, a storage cell requiring contact with seawater, and/or a means of converting water flow to electricity. Each of the above-claimed features must be expressly described in the specification.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant's Arguments: Regarding rejection of claim 24 about the actuated portions being oriented both at a substantially vertical angle and a substantially horizontal angle, Applicant has argued that the rearward wings are oriented diagonally, which makes them both substantially vertical and substantially horizontal.
Response: A diagonally oriented wing can either be substantially vertical or alternatively, substantially horizontal. However, it cannot simultaneously be both substantially vertical and substantially horizontal, as being argued.
Applicant's Arguments: Regarding rejection of claim 24 about the independent power source, Applicant has argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand how to construct an independent power source with one or more of a storage cell, a storage cell requiring contact with seawater, and/or a means of converting water flow to electricity.
Response: The disclosure is silent on what such storage cells are that require contact with seawater, or what mechanism is employed for converting water flow to electricity. Therefore, in absence of sufficient guidance in the disclosure, a person skilled in the art would not be able to make and/or use any of such claimed matter.
Applicant's Arguments: Regarding claim 29, Applicant has argued that that paragraph [0062] describes the relationship between the actuator 61 and the forward wings 16, which would be sufficient to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention.
Response: Although ¶0062 of the disclosure teaches four servo motors each independent driving one of the two forward and two rearward wings, it does not provide sufficient information on how they are connected to the same actuator.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
